alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01007902.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/79

---

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)

(Case T-719/18)

(2019/C 44/106)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Application No 16 615 114

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 in Case R 346/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]






  1. | Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]

1.

Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected;

| 2. | Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By:
/S/    GLENN L. COOPER


Chief Executive Office


December 23, 2002
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00213-CR

MARVIN FRANK HALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0216557

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marvin Frank Hall filed a pro se notice of appeal December 3, 2014, attempting to appeal 

the trial court’s “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Time Cut.” We received and reviewed 

the clerk’s record in this matter, which indicated that the judgment adjudicating Hall’s guilt in 

trial court cause number 0216557 was filed August 26, 2004, and sentence was imposed in this 

matter on that same date. On December 5, 2014, we notified Hall by letter of a possible defect in 

this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal; specifically, we informed Hall that there was no 

appealable judgment or order in the record and that, in the absence of such, we lacked 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Providing Hall a reasonable opportunity to cure this defect, we 

afforded him fifteen days from the date of the letter to show this Court how it had jurisdiction. 

On December 29, 2014, we received a document from Hall captioned, “In the Direct Appeal of 

Marvin Frank Hall Seeking Relief From Final Felony Conviction,” in which Hall claimed this 

Court has jurisdiction over his appeal because the issues he raises are purportedly jurisdictional. 

Hall further claimed that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal because he is permitted to 

raise the issue of whether or not his plea was voluntary. 

To the extent that Hall seeks to directly appeal the judgment rendered against him 

August 26, 2004, his appeal is untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Under Rule 26.2(a)(1) 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline for filing a direct appeal from that 

judgment expired long ago. See id.

To the extent that Hall seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his 

December 3, 2014, motion seeking some form of time credit on his prison sentence or a 
3

reduction in that sentence, we find that such order is not one from which the Texas Legislature 

has authorized an appeal. In the State of Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas 

Legislature has authorized an appeal. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App.

1981). When the Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting 

its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to 

hear such appeals. In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without 

jurisdiction and have no authority to act. See id.

Because the time to file a direct appeal in this matter has long since passed and because 

the record does not otherwise include any appealable order, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 7, 2015

Date Decided: January 8, 2015

Do Not Publish
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION: 

DATE: November 9, 2010 

TYPE: Meeting 

PARTICIPANTS: 

Arizona Public Service: Mark Schiavoni, Senior Vice President of Fossil Generation; Ed Fox, 

Vice President and Chief Sustainability Office; Ann Becker, Counsel 

EPA, Region 9: Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division; Colleen McKaughan, Associate 

Director, Air Division 

EPA Region 9 (by phone): Anita Lee; Ann Lyons, Steve Frey, Scott Bohning 

SUBJECT: Four Corners Power Plant 

 APS provided the information that it had issued a press release announcing that APS 

would be purchasing Southern California Edison’s share of ownership in Units 4 & 5. Subject 

to several regulatory and lease approvals, APS would shut-down Units 1, 2 & 3 in 2014, and 

install SCR technology on Units 4 & 5 by 2018. 

 APS stated that it would be submitting additional written information to EPA within a 

few weeks. Preliminarily, APS indicated that its proposal would achieve result in greater 

visibility improvements to surrounding Class I areas.
#### Carol Dickstein et al., on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Optical Service, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 3, 1959.

*Joel J. Weiner*for defendant.

*Sidney H. Asch*for plaintiffs.

Sidney A. Fine, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action is denied. The complaint states a valid cause of action for declaratory judgment and relief incidental thereto.

The factual allegations of the complaint are in substance that the defendant engages in the corporate practice of optometry, by holding itself out as qualified to render optometric services, and by rendering these services, through its employees. The complaint alleges the various optometric services performed by defendant’s employees upon plaintiff Carol Dickstein. This plaintiff is alleged to have visited defendant’s premises and received services as part of which defendant, through employees, diagnosed her eyes for optical deficiencies and prescribed lenses. It is alleged that defendant, through employees, represented to plaintiff Dickstein that they were able to and would prepare and dispense lenses prescribed for her and would fit and adjust *496same to her face. It is alleged further that defendant, through its employees, represented to plaintiff Dickstein that they would provide ocular exercises for her eyes. Plaintiff Carol Dickstein is joined in this action by Franklin Seward and William Roberts, optometrists licensed in the State of New York, and by the New York State Optometric Association, Inc., suing on behalf of its members and the general public.

The services allegedly rendered by the defendant, through its employees, constitute the practice of optometry (Education Law, § 7101). It is well established that corporations cannot practice optometry in New York *(Matter of Dickson*v. *Flynn,*273 N. Y. 72; *Matter of Stern*v. *Flynn,*154 Misc. 609; 1913 Atty. Gen. 401; 1933 Atty. Gen. [Inf.], 48 St. Dept. 158) and the employment of optometrists or physicians for that purpose by a corporation is the practice of optometry by that corporation.

Section 7109 of the Education Law does not authorize the practice of optometry by a corporation. This section relates only to the sale of ready-made optical merchandise. It makes it *11*unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell, at retail, as merchandise, in any store or established place of business in the state, any spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for the correction of vision, unless a duly licensed physician or duly qualified optometrist, licensed under part one of this article, be in charge of and in personal attendance at the booth, counter or place, where such articles are sold in such store or established place of business.” The optometrist or physician at the place of sale can only act in connection with the sale of ready-made optical merchandise to customers of the corporation *(Roschen*v. *Ward,*279 U. S. 337; *Matter of Dickson*v. *Flynn, supra;*1946 Atty. Gen. 314).
10513

#### Association of Apt. Owners of Kuhio Shores at Poipu v.Robinson

Dismissed
#### Boyles v. Sagayadoro

18228

3/20/97

Vacated and Remanded
# C_2021481EN.01001201.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (Conacee) v Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

(Case C-598/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 20 - Reserved contracts - National legislation reserving the right to participate in certain public procurement procedures to Social initiative special employment centres - Additional conditions not provided for by the directive - Principles of equal treatment and proportionality)

(2021/C 481/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Nacional de Centros Especiales de Empleo (Conacee)

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing additional criteria beyond those laid down by that provision, thereby excluding from reserved public procurement procedures certain economic operators which satisfy the criteria laid down in that provision, provided that that Member State complies with the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
EX-23-1

                        CONSENT OF TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation by reference our report dated February 6, 2001,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lahaina  Acquisitions,  Inc. for
the period ended September 30, 2000.

/s/TAUBER & BALSER, P.C.
Atlanta, Georgia

February 14, 2001



EX 23-2

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement No.
333-90295 of Lahaina  Acquistions,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated January
11, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lahaina  Acquisitions,
Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2000.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia

February 15, 2001

                      CONSENT OF HOLLAND SHIPES VANN, P.C.


Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference of our report dated  September 9,
1999 (except for Note 12 as to which the date is September  21,  1999),  and our
report  Dated  September  9, 1999  (except  for Note 13, as to which the date is
September  21,  1999),  appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Lahaina
Acquisitions, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2000.

/s/HOLLAND SHIPES VANN, P.C.
Atlanta, Georgia
February 8, 2001

                                       56
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ADAM SMITH

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 25, 2012

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 23 and Tuesday, 
July 24, 2012, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I 
been present, I would have voted:
  ``No'' on vote No. 499 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
H.R. 2362, as amended);
  ``No'' on vote No. 500 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
S. 2039);
  ``Aye'' on vote No. 501 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
H.R. 3477);
  ``No'' on vote No. 502 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 
738); and
  ``No'' on vote No. 503 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 738).

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P.;

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

 
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  February 22, 2005
/s/ John P. Manning   
John P. Manning 
Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated: December 14, 2007 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM    | 
|------------------------ | ----------------------- | 
|                         | Steven D. Bonham        | 
|                         | Chief Financial Officer | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

31

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs:
       Special Report entitled ``Activities of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs During the 111th 
     Congress'' (Rept. No. 112-193).
       By Mr. KERRY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
     without amendment:
       S. 641. A bill to provide 100,000,000 people with first-
     time access to safe drinking water and sanitation on a 
     sustainable basis within six years by improving the capacity 
     of the United States Government to fully implement the 
     Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Rept. No. 
     112-09194).
       By Mr. AKAKA, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, without 
     amendment:
       H.R. 1560. A bill to amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and 
     Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act 
     to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe to determine blood 
     quantum requirement for membership in that tribe.
       By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute:
       S. 792. A bill to authorize the waiver of certain debts 
     relating to assistance provided to individuals and households 
     since 2005.
       By Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation, without amendment:
       S. 3410. A bill to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, 
     And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 
     2006, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```
#### Goodrum v. Tanaka

16459

10/27/94

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                       1,612,171
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,247,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 87,545,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           113,461,280
<PP&E>                                      19,360,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             137,512,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       85,383,258
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,078
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,253,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               137,512,517
<SALES>                                    106,048,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           106,048,284
<CGS>                                       61,600,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,600,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,691,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2,276,498)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,414,746)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,414,746)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BIG BABOON, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

SAP AMERICA, INC., HP INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2019

- 1928

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:17

- cv

- 02082

- HSG, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam

, Jr.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

L ANCE R EICH , Kolesar & Leatham, Las Vegas, NV, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

J. C HRISTOPHER C ARRAWAY , Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, argued for defendants

- appellees. Also represented by K LAUS H. H AMM

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 19-1928 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/2020O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, O’M ALLEY

, and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 2, 2020
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1928 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 09/02/2020